I almost had an aneurysm listening to Bachmann debate Bernie Sanders..

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: Metallicus
We understand altruism and support it (especially with YOUR conservative monies.

Exactly. Socialism works until you run out of other people's money. Altruism using other people's money is not altruism and it is the very definition of the greed and selfishness you pretend to dislike.

a reply to: largo

I feel that the best part of this issue is that of the TWENTY-THREE self appointed candidates for POTUS under the Repusilcan brand, none are women. 23 dim-witted nay sayers/brayers and these two broads can't breach the party walls to throw their brand of BS.

Carly Fiorina Announced her bid for the republican ticket on May 5th so as educated on the run for the republican primary as you might think you are, you'd be a tad wrong.


And for me, I'm done voting for the symbol behind their name. I could care less about the (D), (R) and (I) but the situation we reside in today and the best possible path to resolving it with the least amount of growing pains.

a reply to: Bearack


Not sure where you picked up that acumen on economics.

If the wages are raised MANY things happen. It is beyond complicated when you throw in the trade aspect.

A true minimum wage that is effective for EVERYONE, would require trade sanctions. These would be based on what the wages should be in the suppliers locale. If the Vietnamese pay $1/hr, we should tax for the difference in wages from our own standard. There would be no downward compression of profit/wages/employment. We would have to institute tremendous modifications because we would no longer be bottoming out every cost and maximizing every profit.

It then would be more than 'temporarily remoting the effect'. We would have to assess what a human is worth, what their base needs are, put a little fudge factor for comfort and compute a wage. This would not be vis a vis which is THE corpserate capitalist desire to force competition even where it is unfavorable to HUMANITY.

Instead we use a human scaling and start with a human as the basis for economics, not monetization/commodification and the arbitrary fiat currency we so enjoy. This does a number of things that make my spirit bounce.

a reply to: Bearack

a reply to: largo

I do agree the economics of the situation is seriously more complicated than I laid out and I did generalized the ramifications, however, tariffs on other nations is even more complicated. $1 an hour wage in Vietnam is crazy different than that here as most people in Vietnam cost of living is DRAMATICALLY lower than that of us here in the United States and the translation of value of dollar in one nation versus here is also dynamic. Us trying to put a value on how others should live is also an interesting dichotomy and hasn't worked well in places like, hmm, the Middle East?

a reply to: Bearack
>5 % error rate. Still an A but a flaw none the less.

Thanks. I understand that the three tiers of chasers have a component at the bottom that have less than a favorable 2% polling.
I ignored them at my peril.

This whole thread is proof of the war on women from the left, they attack every woman on the right calling them stupid and any number of things, including sexualizing them.....

You dont have to agree with them but that doesnt make them stupid...


Indeed war on women, hypocritical left-wing

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Yup. ATSers tripping over themselves to be more progressive than the next. "LOOK EVERYONE! ME SO PC!"

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: LDragonFire

They are both highly educated with high IQs.

No one looks good after years of being targeted by the liberal media bias.

I've been agreeing with a few of your posts lately. This one not so much. Say what you will about Sanders or anyone's policies. that's what we should be debating but Palin and Bachman? Both lunatics...not very smart ones at that.

I try to judge people by if I would let them in my house or invite them over for Burgers if they lived next door and it was the 4th of July. These two wouldn't be allowed anywhere near my property line, and although I disagree with Jeb Bush's policies and rhetoric. He would get a burger. Not a lunatic.

a reply to: NavyDoc
One of the most interesting aspects of conservatives is their absolute need to define what is mine (MINE!! MINE!!) and what they can take.
If you believe that the SPECIES is more important than the individual, you must temper the sense of personal property with the concept of the commons.
In some ways this is pointed out by that uber-capitalist CEO of Nestle's that feels NOBODY deserves a right to water.
To me this is the mark of moral moronicity.
If they came after this guy and they were hanging him in front of my house, I would take action. I would clap.

If you are aware of the fact that YOU are an arcology of various tiny beings and that the same precept was used in generating the Universe, perhaps you could shrink the ego required to state that you OWN ANYTHING. Your gestalt does. Your species does. The biosphere does. You are just permitted to be an avaricious, mendacious Scrooge due to a temporary permission that can be revoked.

You brand socialism, shared responsibility, as a bad.
Why?
It works in most mundane tasks. It is proven to be cheaper and normally better than privately provided services. Somehow that offends your sensibility though this is supported by research.

So, I'll explain why this works this way.
Politicians run the programs. They report to us (I know that there are problems but look at proxy voting in Corpserations for a comparison.) and therefore we can look at the books and if needed fire the managers.
Privatization only increases the distance between you and your money. The profits go to the Bank centers and depart your locale. You and your community steadily grow poorer as the hubs and the Elites become more wealthy.

I am not into unlimited government but I could handle everyday tasks better than this BS concerning utilities, hospitals, clinics, waste disposal, prisons, security, water, etc.
What most conservatives do not want to believe is that they ARE pimples that are going to be popped. They are very fearful. They fear their god! It goes downhill from there.
The fear is useful survival trait as long as it can be focused on REAL problems.
Medical care for the needy is a real problem but somehow the skew on the right is that this is somehow abused. How do you abuse going to the Doctor (unless he's in on it)? Why does it trouble conservatives to have healthy people in YOUR COMMUNITY? Giving food to EVERY child in school is bad? Not taxing billionaires improves whose lives?

There are parts missing from conservatives and they will never be replaced, because they have no doubt that they do not need them. They are fundamentally, biologically, mentally aloof from what should be readily apparent. They have no value in society and can be replaced by meat robots, programmed to absorb as much as they can.

Hell, they think Ayn Rand is a philosopher!
Just witless.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
This whole thread is proof of the war on women from the left, they attack every woman on the right calling them stupid and any number of things, including sexualizing them.....

You dont have to agree with them but that doesnt make them stupid...


Indeed war on women, hypocritical left-wing

If Michelle Bachman was a man, she'd still be stupid.

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: NavyDoc
One of the most interesting aspects of conservatives is their absolute need to define what is mine (MINE!! MINE!!) and what they can take.
If you believe that the SPECIES is more important than the individual, you must temper the sense of personal property with the concept of the commons.
In some ways this is pointed out by that uber-capitalist CEO of Nestle's that feels NOBODY deserves a right to water.
To me this is the mark of moral moronicity.
If they came after this guy and they were hanging him in front of my house, I would take action. I would clap.

If you are aware of the fact that YOU are an arcology of various tiny beings and that the same precept was used in generating the Universe, perhaps you could shrink the ego required to state that you OWN ANYTHING. Your gestalt does. Your species does. The biosphere does. You are just permitted to be an avaricious, mendacious Scrooge due to a temporary permission that can be revoked.

You brand socialism, shared responsibility, as a bad.
Why?
It works in most mundane tasks. It is proven to be cheaper and normally better than privately provided services. Somehow that offends your sensibility though this is supported by research.

So, I'll explain why this works this way.
Politicians run the programs. They report to us (I know that there are problems but look at proxy voting in Corpserations for a comparison.) and therefore we can look at the books and if needed fire the managers.
Privatization only increases the distance between you and your money. The profits go to the Bank centers and depart your locale. You and your community steadily grow poorer as the hubs and the Elites become more wealthy.

I am not into unlimited government but I could handle everyday tasks better than this BS concerning utilities, hospitals, clinics, waste disposal, prisons, security, water, etc.
What most conservatives do not want to believe is that they ARE pimples that are going to be popped. They are very fearful. They fear their god! It goes downhill from there.
The fear is useful survival trait as long as it can be focused on REAL problems.
Medical care for the needy is a real problem but somehow the skew on the right is that this is somehow abused. How do you abuse going to the Doctor (unless he's in on it)? Why does it trouble conservatives to have healthy people in YOUR COMMUNITY? Giving food to EVERY child in school is bad? Not taxing billionaires improves whose lives?

There are parts missing from conservatives and they will never be replaced, because they have no doubt that they do not need them. They are fundamentally, biologically, mentally aloof from what should be readily apparent. They have no value in society and can be replaced by meat robots, programmed to absorb as much as they can.

Hell, they think Ayn Rand is a philosopher!
Just witless.

And the most interesting thing about liberals is that they think that someone else's stuff is theirs. Earned it? Nope, work is for suckers.

Logically, what is more greedy--wanting to keep what you have earned or wanting to take from somone else what they earned?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: NavyDoc
One of the most interesting aspects of conservatives is their absolute need to define what is mine (MINE!! MINE!!) and what they can take.
If you believe that the SPECIES is more important than the individual, you must temper the sense of personal property with the concept of the commons.
In some ways this is pointed out by that uber-capitalist CEO of Nestle's that feels NOBODY deserves a right to water.
To me this is the mark of moral moronicity.
If they came after this guy and they were hanging him in front of my house, I would take action. I would clap.

If you are aware of the fact that YOU are an arcology of various tiny beings and that the same precept was used in generating the Universe, perhaps you could shrink the ego required to state that you OWN ANYTHING. Your gestalt does. Your species does. The biosphere does. You are just permitted to be an avaricious, mendacious Scrooge due to a temporary permission that can be revoked.

You brand socialism, shared responsibility, as a bad.
Why?
It works in most mundane tasks. It is proven to be cheaper and normally better than privately provided services. Somehow that offends your sensibility though this is supported by research.

So, I'll explain why this works this way.
Politicians run the programs. They report to us (I know that there are problems but look at proxy voting in Corpserations for a comparison.) and therefore we can look at the books and if needed fire the managers.
Privatization only increases the distance between you and your money. The profits go to the Bank centers and depart your locale. You and your community steadily grow poorer as the hubs and the Elites become more wealthy.

I am not into unlimited government but I could handle everyday tasks better than this BS concerning utilities, hospitals, clinics, waste disposal, prisons, security, water, etc.
What most conservatives do not want to believe is that they ARE pimples that are going to be popped. They are very fearful. They fear their god! It goes downhill from there.
The fear is useful survival trait as long as it can be focused on REAL problems.
Medical care for the needy is a real problem but somehow the skew on the right is that this is somehow abused. How do you abuse going to the Doctor (unless he's in on it)? Why does it trouble conservatives to have healthy people in YOUR COMMUNITY? Giving food to EVERY child in school is bad? Not taxing billionaires improves whose lives?

There are parts missing from conservatives and they will never be replaced, because they have no doubt that they do not need them. They are fundamentally, biologically, mentally aloof from what should be readily apparent. They have no value in society and can be replaced by meat robots, programmed to absorb as much as they can.

Hell, they think Ayn Rand is a philosopher!
Just witless.

And the most interesting thing about liberals is that they think that someone else's stuff is theirs. Earned it? Nope, work is for suckers.

Logically, what is more greedy--wanting to keep what you have earned or wanting to take from somone else what they earned?

And wealthy people who want higher taxes on the wealthy so that the less fortunate can be better off...is that selfish too?

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: NavyDoc
One of the most interesting aspects of conservatives is their absolute need to define what is mine (MINE!! MINE!!) and what they can take.
If you believe that the SPECIES is more important than the individual, you must temper the sense of personal property with the concept of the commons.
In some ways this is pointed out by that uber-capitalist CEO of Nestle's that feels NOBODY deserves a right to water.
To me this is the mark of moral moronicity.
If they came after this guy and they were hanging him in front of my house, I would take action. I would clap.

If you are aware of the fact that YOU are an arcology of various tiny beings and that the same precept was used in generating the Universe, perhaps you could shrink the ego required to state that you OWN ANYTHING. Your gestalt does. Your species does. The biosphere does. You are just permitted to be an avaricious, mendacious Scrooge due to a temporary permission that can be revoked.

You brand socialism, shared responsibility, as a bad.
Why?
It works in most mundane tasks. It is proven to be cheaper and normally better than privately provided services. Somehow that offends your sensibility though this is supported by research.

So, I'll explain why this works this way.
Politicians run the programs. They report to us (I know that there are problems but look at proxy voting in Corpserations for a comparison.) and therefore we can look at the books and if needed fire the managers.
Privatization only increases the distance between you and your money. The profits go to the Bank centers and depart your locale. You and your community steadily grow poorer as the hubs and the Elites become more wealthy.

I am not into unlimited government but I could handle everyday tasks better than this BS concerning utilities, hospitals, clinics, waste disposal, prisons, security, water, etc.
What most conservatives do not want to believe is that they ARE pimples that are going to be popped. They are very fearful. They fear their god! It goes downhill from there.
The fear is useful survival trait as long as it can be focused on REAL problems.
Medical care for the needy is a real problem but somehow the skew on the right is that this is somehow abused. How do you abuse going to the Doctor (unless he's in on it)? Why does it trouble conservatives to have healthy people in YOUR COMMUNITY? Giving food to EVERY child in school is bad? Not taxing billionaires improves whose lives?

There are parts missing from conservatives and they will never be replaced, because they have no doubt that they do not need them. They are fundamentally, biologically, mentally aloof from what should be readily apparent. They have no value in society and can be replaced by meat robots, programmed to absorb as much as they can.

Hell, they think Ayn Rand is a philosopher!
Just witless.

And the most interesting thing about liberals is that they think that someone else's stuff is theirs. Earned it? Nope, work is for suckers.

Logically, what is more greedy--wanting to keep what you have earned or wanting to take from somone else what they earned?

And wealthy people who want higher taxes on the wealthy so that the less fortunate can be better off...is that selfish too?

Yes. They say that to make themselves look good but always make sure that they are covered by exemptions. If they feel bad they can write a check at any time to the treasury--but, amazingly, even with all their rhetoric, they never do.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I just called her psychopathic, she's definitely cunning, and that takes some wits. No woman hater here, I'm a psycho hater. Sue me.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: NavyDoc
One of the most interesting aspects of conservatives is their absolute need to define what is mine (MINE!! MINE!!) and what they can take.
If you believe that the SPECIES is more important than the individual, you must temper the sense of personal property with the concept of the commons.
In some ways this is pointed out by that uber-capitalist CEO of Nestle's that feels NOBODY deserves a right to water.
To me this is the mark of moral moronicity.
If they came after this guy and they were hanging him in front of my house, I would take action. I would clap.

If you are aware of the fact that YOU are an arcology of various tiny beings and that the same precept was used in generating the Universe, perhaps you could shrink the ego required to state that you OWN ANYTHING. Your gestalt does. Your species does. The biosphere does. You are just permitted to be an avaricious, mendacious Scrooge due to a temporary permission that can be revoked.

You brand socialism, shared responsibility, as a bad.
Why?
It works in most mundane tasks. It is proven to be cheaper and normally better than privately provided services. Somehow that offends your sensibility though this is supported by research.

So, I'll explain why this works this way.
Politicians run the programs. They report to us (I know that there are problems but look at proxy voting in Corpserations for a comparison.) and therefore we can look at the books and if needed fire the managers.
Privatization only increases the distance between you and your money. The profits go to the Bank centers and depart your locale. You and your community steadily grow poorer as the hubs and the Elites become more wealthy.

I am not into unlimited government but I could handle everyday tasks better than this BS concerning utilities, hospitals, clinics, waste disposal, prisons, security, water, etc.
What most conservatives do not want to believe is that they ARE pimples that are going to be popped. They are very fearful. They fear their god! It goes downhill from there.
The fear is useful survival trait as long as it can be focused on REAL problems.
Medical care for the needy is a real problem but somehow the skew on the right is that this is somehow abused. How do you abuse going to the Doctor (unless he's in on it)? Why does it trouble conservatives to have healthy people in YOUR COMMUNITY? Giving food to EVERY child in school is bad? Not taxing billionaires improves whose lives?

There are parts missing from conservatives and they will never be replaced, because they have no doubt that they do not need them. They are fundamentally, biologically, mentally aloof from what should be readily apparent. They have no value in society and can be replaced by meat robots, programmed to absorb as much as they can.

Hell, they think Ayn Rand is a philosopher!
Just witless.

And the most interesting thing about liberals is that they think that someone else's stuff is theirs. Earned it? Nope, work is for suckers.

Logically, what is more greedy--wanting to keep what you have earned or wanting to take from somone else what they earned?

And wealthy people who want higher taxes on the wealthy so that the less fortunate can be better off...is that selfish too?

Yes. They say that to make themselves look good but always make sure that they are covered by exemptions. If they feel bad they can write a check at any time to the treasury--but, amazingly, even with all their rhetoric, they never do.

A single individual writing a check isn't going to do a thing to solve the problems of income inequality.

You reduce all political philosophy involving some semblance of material equality as 'poor stupid lazy people wanting free #.' Such a gross over-simplification.

All Ill say about that woman is the eyes have 'it' and 'ít'' is very squirrily

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: NavyDoc
One of the most interesting aspects of conservatives is their absolute need to define what is mine (MINE!! MINE!!) and what they can take.
If you believe that the SPECIES is more important than the individual, you must temper the sense of personal property with the concept of the commons.
In some ways this is pointed out by that uber-capitalist CEO of Nestle's that feels NOBODY deserves a right to water.
To me this is the mark of moral moronicity.
If they came after this guy and they were hanging him in front of my house, I would take action. I would clap.

If you are aware of the fact that YOU are an arcology of various tiny beings and that the same precept was used in generating the Universe, perhaps you could shrink the ego required to state that you OWN ANYTHING. Your gestalt does. Your species does. The biosphere does. You are just permitted to be an avaricious, mendacious Scrooge due to a temporary permission that can be revoked.

You brand socialism, shared responsibility, as a bad.
Why?
It works in most mundane tasks. It is proven to be cheaper and normally better than privately provided services. Somehow that offends your sensibility though this is supported by research.

So, I'll explain why this works this way.
Politicians run the programs. They report to us (I know that there are problems but look at proxy voting in Corpserations for a comparison.) and therefore we can look at the books and if needed fire the managers.
Privatization only increases the distance between you and your money. The profits go to the Bank centers and depart your locale. You and your community steadily grow poorer as the hubs and the Elites become more wealthy.

I am not into unlimited government but I could handle everyday tasks better than this BS concerning utilities, hospitals, clinics, waste disposal, prisons, security, water, etc.
What most conservatives do not want to believe is that they ARE pimples that are going to be popped. They are very fearful. They fear their god! It goes downhill from there.
The fear is useful survival trait as long as it can be focused on REAL problems.
Medical care for the needy is a real problem but somehow the skew on the right is that this is somehow abused. How do you abuse going to the Doctor (unless he's in on it)? Why does it trouble conservatives to have healthy people in YOUR COMMUNITY? Giving food to EVERY child in school is bad? Not taxing billionaires improves whose lives?

There are parts missing from conservatives and they will never be replaced, because they have no doubt that they do not need them. They are fundamentally, biologically, mentally aloof from what should be readily apparent. They have no value in society and can be replaced by meat robots, programmed to absorb as much as they can.

Hell, they think Ayn Rand is a philosopher!
Just witless.

And the most interesting thing about liberals is that they think that someone else's stuff is theirs. Earned it? Nope, work is for suckers.

Logically, what is more greedy--wanting to keep what you have earned or wanting to take from somone else what they earned?

And wealthy people who want higher taxes on the wealthy so that the less fortunate can be better off...is that selfish too?

Yes. They say that to make themselves look good but always make sure that they are covered by exemptions. If they feel bad they can write a check at any time to the treasury--but, amazingly, even with all their rhetoric, they never do.

A single individual writing a check isn't going to do a thing to solve the problems of income inequality.

You reduce all political philosophy involving some semblance of material equality as 'poor stupid lazy people wanting free #.' Such a gross over-simplification.

Yeah the limousine liberals use that excuse. However, it is dishonest to demand taking more from other people unless you put your own ass on the line.

And speaking of "gross over simplication" you do the same thing with the whole "evil 1%" crap. We small business owners are not "greedy" nor "immoral." You can't play the bull# game and then complain when others do it.

a reply to: onequestion

The liberal position on corporate taxation is flatly nonsense. Corporations always, always, always, pass 100% of all their costs to their customers. If they didn't, they would definitely go out of business. Corporate tax is a *flat* tax on consumer spending. If you are such a liberal why the hell would you be in support of a flat tax?! The only reasonable corporate tax rate for both any liberal OR Democrat would be zero. Republicans who like a flat tax could argue for a low flat tax rate on corporations. If a liberal would take Bernie's approach to comparing real-world situations like Norway and comparing the data, that would be obvious.

Bernie's mention of Norway is just downright miraculous. So to me that makes him like top clown in the clown show. I mean, actually doing comparative political science. Wow. Now all Bernie has to do is follow through what that political science thingy where you compare countries policies with one another and then he can figure out how to convert into the right side of economic policy.

Government spending AND government revenues in Bernie's country the USA have been hovering at extreme levels for decades. He seems quite clueless that is the facts, as if he never paid attention to what was actually going on around him. More taxes would be absolutely insane. Tax revenues double, then double, then double, then double... etc. But its never enough for liberals like Bernie Sanders. Never. Again, he should keep doing that "evidence" thing he did like with Norway and then we could start getting somewhere. Like for example, we could talk about how Norways government spending is LESS on average than other countries in Europe. Hmmmm, there would be a clue or something as to why the Norway economy is doing well.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: LDragonFire

They are both highly educated with high IQs.

No one looks good after years of being targeted by the liberal media bias.

LOL! That is funny! There is no way in hell either of those women have high IQ's. Really can't believe they are highly educated either, but I am not interested in researching that end.

How many of us reading this post would have ever said "I can see Russia!" You know what I'm talking about. If you are intelligent or even just educated you wouldn't say the things that ocme out of these womens mouths.

Actually, I really don't think you can be highly intelligent and be in politics. Cunning, crafty, driven, quick-witted, but intelligent? That word deserves more respect.